Of course, "people won't have to do it all" also implies "the future doesn't need us".

Currently those poor workers are cheaper than the machines that could do the same job. Once the machines become cheaper than a sustenance-wage for a human, there will be literally no jobs for those people, ever.

And than means that either by that time we drastically change our distribution of resources - where 'having a job' is not needed for living; or expect literal class warfare.

The point is the issue isn't amazon treating workers bad. Obviously they'd be even worse off if amazon got rid of them, yet that's considered perfectly acceptable. If you think it's not, then think of all the companies in the world that also don't employ people because technology makes them unnecessary (or they just don't need to in the first place) and place equal blame on them.

The problem isn't with one company, or even just the industries that hire lots of unskilled workers. The problem is our society requires people to depend on their job and the value of their labor as their only source of income. This problem becomes more and more obvious as the value of labor continues to fall with technology and competition with other countries.

I'm not sure if anyone should be happy about the prospects of literal class warfare, i.e., a large portion of society being so disenfranchised that they need to resort to mass violence in order to survive. There are 3 possible outcomes to that:

(a) the warfare is limited and we're back to the same decision point (how do we change society?) but lots people have suffered for no good reason;

(b) the fighting ends with 'permanently jobless' getting physically eliminated in large numbers - increasingly sophisticated military/police forces + growing drone warfare may make it a possible outcome;

(c) the fighting ends with them winning, and implementing, as I said, "drastically change our distribution of resources - where 'having a job' is not needed for living;".

Why don't we just agree on (c) and implement it without need for bloodshed?

There will be in my lifetime billions of people without a possibility for any economically viable "job", i.e., the rest of society doesn't need anything at all from them, not their labor, not their services, not their flesh. They still need resources to live. So either they'll (a) not get those resources and not live; (b) we'll simply give them those resources; or (c) they'll try to take those resources - but in the end it results in (a) or (b) anyways.

>Why don't we just agree on (c) and implement it without need for bloodshed?

Because large portions of the not-completely-disenfranchised consider (c) immoral.

Trust me, I agree on (c). I want my post-scarcity society, goddamnit. The diminishing happiness returns point on income is $70k/year USD per household or local standard-of-living equivalent, and I'm sure with further study we could find out exactly the cost of living variables behind that number. For reference, the current GDP/capita of the USA is $48k/year per person, easily enough to get over the diminishing returns point with approximately 1.5 "GDP/capita portions" per household (ie: leaving several more portions for investment, government, and other nonpersonal uses).

Or as I sometimes joke to people, the Economic Singularity, the point where our economy tips over into being definitively able to satisfy each and every citizen's fundamental needs, has long-since happened. There is no remaining moral excuse for poverty or toil.

However, the powerful elite of society now require poverty and toil for the rest of us simply because their moral code is: "He who does not work shall not eat." That is why there will be class warfare: because we have implemented a system which views mass starvation as a moral local maximum.

See my point in a sibling post. The government want to keep unemployment statistics down so they will end up forcing people into training placements and unpaid internships without a job at the end instead. This is already happening.